The attempt to consult Glasgow's citizens about the major redesign of George Square is disgraceful, but fairly typical of the city council ("Demand for public vote on future of George Square", The Herald, January 10).

Why the indecent haste, and why do our councillors think they have either the authority or the architectural expertise to make the final decision on our behalf?

Glasgow City Council produces a regular glossy magazine which is delivered to every address in the city. Surely an edition could have been devoted to this proposal, with large colour photographs of the designs and appropriate explanatory narrative. The magazine could have had a tear-off reply slip or a pre-paid postcard allowing every interested citizen to express their preference. That would have been a proper consultation.

Loading article content

None of the five proposals viewed on the website is particularly appealing, and one or two are just hideous, making our city centre look like a cheap fairground. I quite like the idea of selected statues being grouped in a circle, but if the Scott Monument is to be retained it should be the central feature of statues in the centre of the square.

The retained statues should only be of figures with a direct connection to Glasgow or Scotland, and have brought distinction to the city or country in their various careers. I suggest the mounted Victoria and Albert should canter off together to Victoria Park, where I'm sure they would be happy. Sir Robert Peel may have founded the first London bobbies, but he made no contribution to Glasgow which had a proper police force at least 30 years earlier. Some of the other statues should either be relocated or demolished.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,


I understand the design brief for the redevelopment of George Square stated that entries should cater for future use of the square as a venue for events.

For the past week the square has resembled a building site while installations for the Christmas fair have been dismantled. Long periods erecting/dismantling structures are a feature of temporary events. One suspects Councillor Gordon Matheson's intention is that there should be more of these held in the square. Is this what he had in mind when he first announced plans to redevelop the square, when he stated he wished to "restore dignity" to the square?

Pre-1998 the square, with symmetrical areas of grass and trees at its west and east ends, had plenty of dignity.

R Murray,

28 Maxwell Drive,


Glasgow Council's "consultation" on the future of George Square consists of a few small, badly located panels hung on a window in a narrow corridor (not even an exhibition space) in the Lighthouse and a wee form to fill in and put in a box.

Were the council serious about consultation then a website featuring all the plans linked to an online poll with a decent deadline would have been the way forward, together with multiple copies of the exhibition panels in libraries, art galleries and other public spaces.

Stuart Neville,

23 Lilac Avenue,